The creation of the heavens and the Earth
-
Peace mmKhan,
My bad, 6000 years is what I was meant to say. Even so, 6000 years for the Earth to form? Does that comply with the current scientific knowledge we hold?
peace
Peace Sushi,
Red Usually I don't tally scientific facts with alQuraan until they get verified with alQuraan. Till then there is no importance for me of any scientific knowledge. This is simply because it gets change every time )
May God bless you,
mmKhan -
Peace Sushi,
Red Usually I don't tally scientific facts with alQuraan until they get verified with alQuraan. Till then there is no importance for me of any scientific knowledge. This is simply because it gets change every time
May God bless you,
mmKhanPeace mmKhan,
But that is what I'm trying to achieve for the fact that these numbers the scientists have generated could not probably deviate too much unless someone somewhere along the lines missed out part of an equation calculating those numbers then yes I'd agree. I'm trying to verify these 'theories' using solely the reading however if there is a seriously big gap in terms of the two numbers from the Quran and scientists about how long it took, then it is initially good to see why that is the case. Jafar and warner make some good points worth considering. Say we gp with your understanding of 6000 years, would it not also be beneficial to see why the scientists seem to think of a completely different number? In all fairnest they probably deserve an explanation since it must've tale quite a few calculations to arrive to the number they did.
Peace peace
-
The Quran says day of judgement. that is not 24 hrs. It also uses the hour for the day of judgement. So time is used variantly in the Quran. Whats important is proportionality. The Quran says universe was 6 days . The Earth took two days. That is one third. If the universe is about 14 billion, this means the Earth is one thrid of that which is 4.6 billion years.
Now what does science so far says.
The universe is believed to be 13.7 billion years old and the Earth is believed to be 4.4 billion years old.
13.7 divided 4.4 = 3.11.
So its pretty accurate.
-
The Quran says day of judgement. that is not 24 hrs. It also uses the hour for the day of judgement. So time is used variantly in the Quran. Whats important is proportionality. The Quran says universe was 6 days . The Earth took two days. That is one third. If the universe is about 14 billion, this means the Earth is one thrid of that which is 4.6 billion years.
Now what does science so far says.
The universe is believed to be 13.7 billion years old and the Earth is believed to be 4.4 billion years old.
13.7 divided 4.4 = 3.11.
So its pretty accurate.
Selam Bigmo and nice to speak to you again,
I really like how you give the proportionality, that I do agree with. The one thing that makes me curious is why 6 and 2? In the proportionality case, why not 3 and 1... Maybe it's me but when reading the verse in the Quran I took it to literally mean 6 days. I hope other people understood my confusion... Don't want to be the only one who took it literally as in 24 hours... (.
Peace peace
-
Peace sushi1992,
The angels, with their reports, climb to Him in a day that equals fifty thousand years.
Because of the different length of days in the Quran it could be concluded that time is a matter of perpective.
for instance, time is different when we are asleep, or will slow down or speed up when faced
with potential danger. According to einstein, if one traveled at just under the the speed of
light one can experience days while the stationary persons on earth would only experience
minutes. In my opinion, this is why the Quran defines "day" differently. Allah is far ahead of
science. It has now become a scientific fact, one proof is the GPS systems that many of use in
our daily lives.Praise to Allah lord of the universe
Peace O0
-
Science and religion are diametrically opposed. They are completely, utterly different things. While science continuously improves and gets more accurate, religion is static. By necessity and definition.
So is it possible to assess or evaluate anything religious scientifically? Not in my opinion. I have asked many times why so many Muslims are suspicious of science and at the same time are in awe of NASA and titles like Professor.
I just remember that I was taught at school, an international school, to question, explain and derive formulas and apply critical thinking, where my Muslim friends were taught the opposite in their local schools, to not question authority and to learn to repeat formulas and just learn them, without questioning their validity or application.Question we know the duration of the evolution of the Universe and the cosmological history of this planet. Is it therefore possible to take the creation story in the Koran as allegoric or a parable and simply assign it a value of "a really long time"? instead of nitpicking what was created on what day, in what order and how long it took?
-
Science and religion are diametrically opposed. They are completely, utterly different things. While science continuously improves and gets more accurate, religion is static. By necessity and definition.
So is it possible to assess or evaluate anything religious scientifically? Not in my opinion. I have asked many times why so many Muslims are suspicious of science and at the same time are in awe of NASA and titles like Professor.
I just remember that I was taught at school, an international school, to question, explain and derive formulas and apply critical thinking, where my Muslim friends were taught the opposite in their local schools, to not question authority and to learn to repeat formulas and just learn them, without questioning their validity or application.Question we know the duration of the evolution of the Universe and the cosmological history of this planet. Is it therefore possible to take the creation story in the Koran as allegoric or a parable and simply assign it a value of "a really long time"? instead of nitpicking what was created on what day, in what order and how long it took?
Selam Stops,
I agree with you in terms of simply assigning the value of "a really long time". This coincides with Bigmo's point. Such as the scientific view that the Earth is around ~4.5 and the universe is around ~13.7 which could explain the proportionality of how Allah created the Earth in 2 days and the whole universe in 6.
Peace peace
-
Science and religion are diametrically opposed. They are completely, utterly different things. While science continuously improves and gets more accurate, religion is static. By necessity and definition.
Salaam,
I have a similar but other point of view. While sience tries to approximate the truth, The Quran is the unchanging truth. The Quran is like Pi, while sience is trying to approach Pi with real numbers.
Question we know the duration of the evolution of the Universe and the cosmological history of this planet. Is it therefore possible to take the creation story in the Koran as allegoric or a parable and simply assign it a value of "a really long time"? instead of nitpicking what was created on what day, in what order and how long it took?
RED Really??? As far as I know we have a theory which per definition is not proven, so we know nothing, we are just guessing on basis of this theory.
BLUE Nope, I don't see anything allegoric in The Quran about it. When the Quran says 6 ayyaam (which is most of times translated as days), then it is in 6 ayyaam. We can discuss what ayyaam means in The Quran but for sure it's 6 ayyaam.
GREEN This is not from The QuranSalaam,
Bender -
salaam all,
A few points
- Quran does not always use "yawm" to mean 24 hours.
- Classical Arabic dictionaries yawm = day, era, time, today, this/that day, age/period of time, rising of the sun till it's resting, accident or event
- A "day" is not a fixed period of time as it depends on what is the reference point. Before the creation of the earth and its revolving etc a day is not defined period of time as we know it today.
- I have little idea why mmkhan referenced 325, but in any case, see 704. Thus if one wishes to use the unsound argument of a "yawm" is a 1000 years, then they will have to reconcile 704 in which a "yawm" is 50 000 years. Perhaps stating the obvious, but this proves a "yawm" is NOT a fixed period of time according to Quran, i.e. time is relative.
- As Bigmo pointed out, if we do not know the period of time referred to as "yawm" in the earth/universe creation verses, we do know the proportionality and that seems sound, according to science.
I dont see the issue.
-
Selam Bigmo and nice to speak to you again,
I really like how you give the proportionality, that I do agree with. The one thing that makes me curious is why 6 and 2? In the proportionality case, why not 3 and 1... Maybe it's me but when reading the verse in the Quran I took it to literally mean 6 days. I hope other people understood my confusion... Don't want to be the only one who took it literally as in 24 hours... (.
Peace peace
It is 6 and 2 based on some nuance of the common factors of whatever other numbers there are. E.g. foods were assigned in four periods IIRC and so on and so forth.
What is amazing about all of these glaring mistranslations is that they expose the hadeethist idealogy for what it truly is. When people preach based on ignorance and create these incredible stories of creation in a matter of literal days, then the more simpler and clearer explanation of a verse comes forth revealing their ignorance. Absolutely loving it. People write volumes upon volumes rejecting scientific examination but all they have done is expose their own folly and they can't even see it.
-
salaam all,
A few points
- Quran does not always use "yawm" to mean 24 hours.
- Classical Arabic dictionaries yawm = day, era, time, today, this/that day, age/period of time, rising of the sun till it's resting, accident or event
- A "day" is not a fixed period of time as it depends on what is the reference point. Before the creation of the earth and its revolving etc a day is not defined period of time as we know it today.
- I have little idea why mmkhan referenced 325, but in any case, see 704. Thus if one wishes to use the unsound argument of a "yawm" is a 1000 years, then they will have to reconcile 704 in which a "yawm" is 50 000 years. Perhaps stating the obvious, but this proves a "yawm" is NOT a fixed period of time according to Quran, i.e. time is relative.
- As Bigmo pointed out, if we do not know the period of time referred to as "yawm" in the earth/universe creation verses, we do know the proportionality and that seems sound, according to science.
I dont see the issue.
Salaam,
I agree with your point no.1. You misunderstood me, I know, it was my mistake that I did not clarify it properly. Sorry for confusion. Yawm cannot mean any fixed hours.
I used 325 instead of 704 because, the yawm in which the malaaika and the rooh goes up IS equal to 50,000 years and also it is not clarified as in 325 "....mimmaa ta3uddoona" means "....of those which YOU count".
May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His only path pr
mmKhan -
Salaam,
I have a similar but other point of view. While sience tries to approximate the truth, The Quran is the unchanging truth. The Quran is like Pi, while sience is trying to approach Pi with real numbers.
- Nope, if it's "the truth" it's not science.
- Pi is irrational. Is the Koran?
- The sentence Koran = truth is nonsensical. The same as "The car is the speed" is nonsensical.
- There is no such thing as "approximate the truth". Truth is truth and absolute. There is no large or small truth. There is no high or low truth or an approximation.
RED Really??? As far as I know we have a theory which per definition is not proven, so we know nothing, we are just guessing on basis of this theory.
You will have to be more precise with what you are saying. What do you mean by "theory which per definition is not proven"??? Are you trying to tell me that you think a scientific theory is based on a hunch?
We have a model, the Big Bang, for the Universe and proof for the age of Earth. Where exactly is your problem?BLUE Nope, I don't see anything allegoric in The Quran about it. When the Quran says 6 ayyaam (which is most of times translated as days), then it is in 6 ayyaam. We can discuss what ayyaam means in The Quran but for sure it's 6 ayyaam.
Are you telling me that you think the entire Koran is to be understood literally? Even if there is something which does not apply to reality?
GREEN This is not from The Quran
"what was created on what day"
I don't understand what you are saying. This is what I find in the Koran
754, 103, 117 all say Allah who created the heavens and the earth in six days7927 Are ye the more difficult to create or the heaven (above)? ((Allah)) hath constructed it
...
7930 and, after that, He spread out the earth.419 says Him Who created the earth in two Days
4112 says He completed them as seven firmaments in two DaysIf this is not from the Koran where else would I find this? This specifies what was created when and for how long. At least when I read it.
-
- Nope, if it's "the truth" it's not science.
Salaam,
Did I said it's sience nope
- Pi is irrational. Is the Koran?
in some sort of way it is.
- The sentence Koran = truth is nonsensical. The same as "The car is the speed" is nonsensical.
red I do not agree
green I agree- There is no such thing as "approximate the truth". Truth is truth and absolute. There is no large or small truth. There is no high or low truth or an approximation.
Maybe you misunderstood, I said "science tries to approximate the truth".
What do you think scientific theories and models do? In case you don't know they try to represent the truth.You will have to be more precise with what you are saying. What do you mean by "theory which per definition is not proven"??? Are you trying to tell me that you think a scientific theory is based on a hunch?
I was very clear, it's not hard to understand.
A theory is per definition not proven, as simple as that. No matter on what it is based as long as it is called a theory, it is not proven.We have a model, the Big Bang, for the Universe and proof for the age of Earth. Where exactly is your problem?
O I don't have any problems thanks for asking.
As you write yourself the big bang is a model. You can take a look in history books what the history is of models.
Do we have a proof for the age of earth? Can you quote for me from a scientific paper were it says that the age of the earth is proven, thanks.Are you telling me that you think the entire Koran is to be understood literally? Even if there is something which does not apply to reality?
If something is allegorical then it is said so or it can be concluded from the context.
There is absolutely nothing allegorical in the verses about creation, unless it is said so."what was created on what day"
I don't understand what you are saying. This is what I find in the Koran
754, 103, 117 all say Allah who created the heavens and the earth in six days7927 Are ye the more difficult to create or the heaven (above)? ((Allah)) hath constructed it
...
7930 and, after that, He spread out the earth.419 says Him Who created the earth in two Days
4112 says He completed them as seven firmaments in two DaysIf this is not from the Koran where else would I find this? This specifies what was created when and for how long. At least when I read it.
I thought you were talking about "on monday there was light, on tuesday there was earth, on wednesday there were animals ( or somthing like that) etc etc etc."
Salaam,
Bender -
Salaam,
Did I said it's sience nope
Oh please stop acting dumb! What is this then? "while sience is trying to approach Pi with real numbers"
in some sort of way it is.
red I do not agree
green I agreeYou must.
Maybe you misunderstood, I said "science tries to approximate the truth".
What do you think scientific theories and models do? In case you don't know they try to represent the truth.No, they don't, you need to check.
I was very clear, it's not hard to understand.
A theory is per definition not proven, as simple as that. No matter on what it is based as long as it is called a theory, it is not proven.
O I don't have any problems thanks for asking.As you write yourself the big bang is a model. You can take a look in history books what the history is of models.
Do we have a proof for the age of earth? Can you quote for me from a scientific paper were it says that the age of the earth is proven, thanks.No, you were not.
No, you are not.
Wrong.
Of course I can.If something is allegorical then it is said so or it can be concluded from the context.
There is absolutely nothing allegorical in the verses about creation, unless it is said so.No, it does not.
I thought you were talking about "on monday there was light, on tuesday there was earth, on wednesday there were animals ( or somthing like that) etc etc etc."
Salaam,
BenderThat's your problem and jumping to conclusions.
-
Oh please stop acting dumb! What is this then? "while sience is trying to approach Pi with real numbers"
You must.
No, they don't, you need to check.
No, you were not.
No, you are not.
Wrong.
Of course I can.No, it does not.
That's your problem and jumping to conclusions.
Salaam,
Thank you for your answers, you are right and I was wrong.
Have a nice evening and try to calm down a bit, it's bad for your heart.
Salaam,
Bender -
Ok. I'm so sorry. I have to jump in. I have to. rotfl
Let's break this down really quick before things get confusing. Let's start with two quotes.
- Nope, if it's "the truth" it's not science.
Science and religion are diametrically opposed. They are completely, utterly different things. While science continuously improves and gets more accurate, religion is static. By necessity and definition.
So is it possible to assess or evaluate anything religious scientifically? Not in my opinion.
Ok. So what you're saying is basically "religion" doesn't change and it's static. It is not "religion" that does not change. It is God that does not change. Now from what I understand, you are unsure of why God is the truth manifested or in other words the creator of reality. But I think that this attribute of God is very important to consider when reading about the purpose of science. This is copied and pasted from the website sciencemadesimple.com. Don't judge me. It was the first link that came up when I searched for "the purpose of science".
Science Definition
The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.
How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method concerned with the physical world."
What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.
What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.
Bender said
I have a similar but other point of view. While sience tries to approximate the truth, The Quran is the unchanging truth. The Quran is like Pi, while sience is trying to approach Pi with real numbers.
And based on the definition of science and its purpose, he is absolutely right. Now for the next point.
- Pi is irrational. Is the Koran?
From mathisfun.com
It is irrational because it cannot be written as a ratio (or fraction),
not because it is crazy!But that should have been common knowledge. Irrational in the mathematical sense is completely different from the dictionary definition
irrational ir?ra?tion?al (-rsh'-nl) adj. Not rational; marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment.
How can Pi lack reason or sound judgement???
Truth is truth and absolute.
I agree with this. And I think defining the terms above should clear things up, but let me know if they haven't.
You will have to be more precise with what you are saying. What do you mean by "theory which per definition is not proven"??? Are you trying to tell me that you think a scientific theory is based on a hunch?
We have a model, the Big Bang, for the Universe and proof for the age of Earth. Where exactly is your problem?Here's a link explaining the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a scientific law.
http//www.wilstar.com/theories.htmNow StopS, you are right in this case. A scientific theory is a tested hypothesis that is generally accepted to be true. But let's go a bit deeper into the meaning of a scientific theory. I think this article draws it out nicely, even though it's talking about a different subject.
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Excerpts from the article
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
So yes. A fact still has the possibility to be proven wrong. The same with a scientific theory. Now you said we have a model for the Big Bang and proof for the age of the Earth. Well let's see.
From http//www.big-bang-theory.com/
According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
In addition, proof of the age of the Earth and universe has not yet been proven. The 13.7 billion year estimate is still just an estimate and can be unproven at any time. We only make do with the tools we have to bring us to near certainty but it will never and can never be 100% truth. We can always get closer to the truth, so much so that it may be confirmed so frequently that it would be perverse to not agree with, but remember this makes whatever truth generally accepted as truth.
The dates of Big Bang generally accepted as 13.7 bya http//biologos.org/questions/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe
A proposal suggesting an older date than this http//www.newscientist.com/article/dn9676-big-bang-pushed-back-two-billion-years.html
But after all that, I agree with your last point. A scientific theory is indeed NOT based on a hunch.
I hope that wasn't too long....I guess my point is, always question!!! And science vs truth CAN coincide as long as we're aiming to explain reality.
Peace! yay
-
salaam all,
A few points
- Quran does not always use "yawm" to mean 24 hours.
- Classical Arabic dictionaries yawm = day, era, time, today, this/that day, age/period of time, rising of the sun till it's resting, accident or event
- A "day" is not a fixed period of time as it depends on what is the reference point. Before the creation of the earth and its revolving etc a day is not defined period of time as we know it today.
- I have little idea why mmkhan referenced 325, but in any case, see 704. Thus if one wishes to use the unsound argument of a "yawm" is a 1000 years, then they will have to reconcile 704 in which a "yawm" is 50 000 years. Perhaps stating the obvious, but this proves a "yawm" is NOT a fixed period of time according to Quran, i.e. time is relative.
- As Bigmo pointed out, if we do not know the period of time referred to as "yawm" in the earth/universe creation verses, we do know the proportionality and that seems sound, according to science.
I dont see the issue.
bravo
I personally like your explanation best. It makes a lot of sense, especially when "day" in our sense is based on the rotation of the earth, yet earth being made in six days is based on.... o
It's impossible to have a fixed period for "day" in this manner because what is it fixed on?
Peace. yay
-
It is 6 and 2 based on some nuance of the common factors of whatever other numbers there are. E.g. foods were assigned in four periods IIRC and so on and so forth.
What is amazing about all of these glaring mistranslations is that they expose the hadeethist idealogy for what it truly is. When people preach based on ignorance and create these incredible stories of creation in a matter of literal days, then the more simpler and clearer explanation of a verse comes forth revealing their ignorance. Absolutely loving it. People write volumes upon volumes rejecting scientific examination but all they have done is expose their own folly and they can't even see it.
Selam IAMOP,
To be honest, in the back of my mind i always thought that it wouldn't make too much sense it being LITERALLY 6 days that we know of today i.e. 144 hours... but luckily i never was brought up in a hadeethist society however I was brought up in a catholic environment where it was imprinted that it was literally 6 days and God rested on the 7th. Obviously i found the idea of God resting on the th ridiculous but i saw how they tried to fit this into our current 7 days a week.... sad really ( but my logic never was happy about it, considering I was quite into my science like physics and such, then i knew 6 days must have been some kind of equivalence to another period of time.
Peace ) peace
